MAHARAJA OF KOLHAPUR Vs. BALA MAHARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are consolidated appeals from a decision of the High Court at Bombay on a question referred to it by the Government of Bombay, under Section 12 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act (X of 1876). The question referred was whether the application in or about the year 1864 of the Summary Settlement under Bombay Acts II and VII of 1863 to certain lands then held by Shri Tatya Maharaj, which subsequently devolved on the late Baba Maharaj, was valid and legal. These Acts provided for the settlement of claims to exemption from payment of land revenue and for the guarantee of a title in perpetuity to the holder of the land, his heirs and assigns, without restriction by Government as to adoption, succession or transfer. The Acts applied to holders of land the freedom of which from payment of land revenue had not been the subject of formal adjudication, where the holders had consented to submit the terms and conditions of holding to summary settlement. But the Acts were not to apply where the land was held under treaty or was granted or held as jagir or saranjam, or similar political tenure, which was defined to mean tenure created from or dependent on political considerations, the existence of which was to be determined by the Government.

(2.) Section 12 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act of 1876 gave the Government a general power to refer questions arising in the investigation of claims which, but for the passing of that Act, could have been tried by a Civil Court to the High Court at Bombay for decision.

(3.) The circumstances under which the question which has arisen was referred to the High Court were these. Baba Maharaj died in 1897. In 1901 a dispute arose between the second appellant in the present appeals, Shri Bala Maharaj, as claimant to the lands the title to which is in controversy, and the first respondent, Shri Jagannath Maharaj, as to which of them was the validly adopted son of the late Baba Maharaj. Jagannath, who was then a minor, brought a suit in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Poona against Bala, who claimed to be the properly adopted son, to establish his own title. The special purpose of the suit was to have it determined that Jagannath had been validly adopted by Baba's widow, and that it was consequently impossible for her to make, as she had endeavoured to do, a second adoption of Bala loss than two months later. A point relied on by the latter in his written statement was that the approval of His Highness the Maharajah of Kolhapur was necessary to such an adoption, and that such approval not having been given, the earlier adoption was void. In July, 1906, the Subordinate Judge decided in favour of Jagannath, holding that he had been validly adopted as the son of Baba. It was held, as the consequence, that no title or interest in the property of Baba had passed to Bala, and he was restrained by injunction from interfering with Baba's property. The High Court at Bombay reversed this, but the Privy Council, differing, restored the judgment of the Subordinate Judge.